Profiles and Credibilty
- Thread starter Fraser.g
- Start date
- Status
C
couchcommander
Guest
lol, you military types get so funny when someone doesn't conform
But anywho, I see two perspectives (mostly) on this thread, those that argue that experience on this forum and a profile can aid in evaluating the content of a post, and those that say you should base your evaluation mostly on what is said.
I think what needs to be understood, however, is that the "profile" camp isn't saying you just accept, at face value, the posts of anyone with an extensive amount of activity, nor those who have a well padded profile. On the contrary, I think they would be just as concerned about evaluating the content of the posts as well. However, I (hope) that what they ARE saying is that the anomnity of the internet also raises a lot of questions, especially on an open forum such as this. Further, given the immense amount of information, some type of system needs to be in place to quickly establish where people are coming from in their perspectives (most importantly, whether it's informed or not). Yes, someone can put on there 30+ years, major in the killer squirrels regiment, etc., but if you combine that with a thousand or so posts where they have managed to largely avoid the rath of the Moderators, and as well not have been shamed into oblivion by the truely qualified and experienced posters on this forum, it does say something to their credibility. Again, though, I am sure that they, like me, would not consider it the end all be all of source evaluation.
As for the other camp, they too have a point that regardless of where a person is coming from, their posts should be looked at and evaluated on their content, not just on who is saying it. Many great ideas have come from people with a new perspective who are not part of the establishment. However, I do have to agree that many of us don't have the time to do this research, and find it much easier to use the built in "cred-o-meter" feature this site has as a tool to do this with (IE some trooper confused on a particular point comes here looking for answers, I would much rather they take the viewpoint of a_majoor or TCBF on issues of armoured doctrine or something of the such, than me, whos posts would not be based on established doctrine, but thoughts that occured to me when reading certain books/newsstories, and largely being posted just to see why they are wrong. Of course the trooper should know not to go looking on a forum, but stranger things have happened).
You are right that this means as a new poster, you have to go a lot farther to make your point than someone else would. However, I would say that this is not dissimilar to how the world works anywho IMO.
But anywho, I see two perspectives (mostly) on this thread, those that argue that experience on this forum and a profile can aid in evaluating the content of a post, and those that say you should base your evaluation mostly on what is said.
I think what needs to be understood, however, is that the "profile" camp isn't saying you just accept, at face value, the posts of anyone with an extensive amount of activity, nor those who have a well padded profile. On the contrary, I think they would be just as concerned about evaluating the content of the posts as well. However, I (hope) that what they ARE saying is that the anomnity of the internet also raises a lot of questions, especially on an open forum such as this. Further, given the immense amount of information, some type of system needs to be in place to quickly establish where people are coming from in their perspectives (most importantly, whether it's informed or not). Yes, someone can put on there 30+ years, major in the killer squirrels regiment, etc., but if you combine that with a thousand or so posts where they have managed to largely avoid the rath of the Moderators, and as well not have been shamed into oblivion by the truely qualified and experienced posters on this forum, it does say something to their credibility. Again, though, I am sure that they, like me, would not consider it the end all be all of source evaluation.
As for the other camp, they too have a point that regardless of where a person is coming from, their posts should be looked at and evaluated on their content, not just on who is saying it. Many great ideas have come from people with a new perspective who are not part of the establishment. However, I do have to agree that many of us don't have the time to do this research, and find it much easier to use the built in "cred-o-meter" feature this site has as a tool to do this with (IE some trooper confused on a particular point comes here looking for answers, I would much rather they take the viewpoint of a_majoor or TCBF on issues of armoured doctrine or something of the such, than me, whos posts would not be based on established doctrine, but thoughts that occured to me when reading certain books/newsstories, and largely being posted just to see why they are wrong. Of course the trooper should know not to go looking on a forum, but stranger things have happened).
You are right that this means as a new poster, you have to go a lot farther to make your point than someone else would. However, I would say that this is not dissimilar to how the world works anywho IMO.
Trinity
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I don't seem to get it.
First thought
Army.ca is not a public board... just accessible to the public.
All members agree to a set of rules and regulations upon signing up.
And then they want to complain about what they agree to.
Second thought
Its a small army. If I say I'm trade R62 (or any trade) there are enough
people in your local area or unit to verify who you are. Unless you are some
secret squirrel, why not post your experience. Unless of course you are
afraid of your posts getting back to where you work at which point maybe
you should be careful on what you post.
I would ALMOST say... that this site ISN'T a democracy. It's owned
by one person, subcribed by many, moderated by a few. If you don't
like it there are other sites to go and post at... http://www.gemusa.com/veteran/chatrooms.htm
Play nice or don't play at all.
EDIT Well said (mostly) couchcommander... but you only have 135 posts.. so I'm going to have to ignore your comments!!
First thought
Army.ca is not a public board... just accessible to the public.
All members agree to a set of rules and regulations upon signing up.
And then they want to complain about what they agree to.
Second thought
Its a small army. If I say I'm trade R62 (or any trade) there are enough
people in your local area or unit to verify who you are. Unless you are some
secret squirrel, why not post your experience. Unless of course you are
afraid of your posts getting back to where you work at which point maybe
you should be careful on what you post.
I would ALMOST say... that this site ISN'T a democracy. It's owned
by one person, subcribed by many, moderated by a few. If you don't
like it there are other sites to go and post at... http://www.gemusa.com/veteran/chatrooms.htm
Play nice or don't play at all.
EDIT Well said (mostly) couchcommander... but you only have 135 posts.. so I'm going to have to ignore your comments!!
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
All this over filling out a profile so the members can understand where the info is coming from.....
Personally....I like to know who I'm talking to and where the info is coming from.
Most people on the site fill it out....and quite truthfully at that. It adds credibility to their posts.
I liken it to walking into a doctors office....no diplomas on the walls...the red winky-dink goes off.
For the concerns of people coming here and just throwing up a bogus profile to placate to the masses just because they can........it's a small military, posers are and have been found out before. Go ahead....have at 'er.
If you are able to stand by your posts....then a little info doesn't hurt.
We're not asking for a SIN Number or what blood group you have.
I've had members (who are serving members of the forces) come up to me here and in theater to question me on many topics...and had some really good discussions. 99% are like that. It's great to put a face to a name. The profile is a way to put experience to a name.
Mind you.....Some act like childeren....which results in me walking away, chuckling.
As for freedom of discussion....the only time it stops is when there is a Guideline broken.
Regards
Personally....I like to know who I'm talking to and where the info is coming from.
Most people on the site fill it out....and quite truthfully at that. It adds credibility to their posts.
I liken it to walking into a doctors office....no diplomas on the walls...the red winky-dink goes off.
For the concerns of people coming here and just throwing up a bogus profile to placate to the masses just because they can........it's a small military, posers are and have been found out before. Go ahead....have at 'er.
If you are able to stand by your posts....then a little info doesn't hurt.
We're not asking for a SIN Number or what blood group you have.
I've had members (who are serving members of the forces) come up to me here and in theater to question me on many topics...and had some really good discussions. 99% are like that. It's great to put a face to a name. The profile is a way to put experience to a name.
Mind you.....Some act like childeren....which results in me walking away, chuckling.
As for freedom of discussion....the only time it stops is when there is a Guideline broken.
Regards
- Reaction score
- 8,621
- Points
- 1,160
The last two posts about sums it up. Everything else has been stated, with no concensus reached. I'm sure, if there's anything earthshattering to add, a Mod will reopen it, if asked.
- Status
Similar threads
